Talk:Pilatus PC-12/Archive 1

Archive 1

Military users

Add South Africa.

This type is currently in service with 41 Squadron Based at Waterkloof AFB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Air_Force#Current_order_of_battle - Roger 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

U-28A merger

I have merged the U-28A page into this one, as I feel that there is little that can be added to the article as it was, and most of the info there was already duplicated here. The U-28 page stated that it was created from a USAF fact sheet, but had no link or publication data for such a source. - BillCJ 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealership Links

The Kelner Pilatus Link is simply a dealership. When I tried to place an external link to another dealership, the link was considered spam. It does not contribute to the article, so isn't Kelner Pilatus also spam? Izath (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original link was a dead link, I corrected that. Don't go about making claims of spamming. Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk, you corrected a dead link, but did you consider whether the link deserves to be there at all? What makes that particular dealer more deserving of being listed than any/all others? Unless there is something really notable about it, it should not be listed. In any case the rules require that in articles about manufactured objects, the manufacturer's website must always be first in the list. Roger (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before jumping all over on a non-issue, note that the edit was a correction, subsequently deleted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

Flags

The use of flags was recently reviewed at WP:AVIATION and I believe the concern was that if they are used purely for decorative purposes, then a case has to be made for their retention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

Civilian users

The maximum landing weight is shown as 4,700 KG/10,450 lbs. This value is incorrect for the PC12, it should be 4,500 KG/9,921 lbs. Add RFDS, they have several in NT, SA and QLd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.47.220 (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the U-28 / my today's edit

sorry MilbornOne, I don't agree with your argument. There are important differences between U-28 and the serial version of the PC-12. These differences (e.g. antennas, sensors, windows) are clearly shown by the featured picture. So I put the picture back in the article. Any other opinions? --Sputniktilt (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with having a U-28 image but that one was really crap and didnt show anything other than a small pc-12 in an image mainly of a dirt strip. If you can find a better image of a U-28 that actually shows the differences clearly then please add it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the image of the aircraft is too small to be of much use here. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI on the Labcorp crash

I had added it because, right after the crash, there were rumors that there were laboratory specimens onboard, which arguably would have made the crash notable. As it turned out, the only cargo onboard was inter-office mail. Dave Cornutt (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely to be notable even if true. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PC12 maximum landing weight

The maximum landing weight for the PC12 is listed as 4,700 KG or 10,450 lbs. This value is incorrect, it should read: 4,500 KG or 9,921 lbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.135.7 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/pilatus_pc12/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability of the included accidents

I'm not at all sure that either of the accidents discussed actually qualify for inclusion per WP:AIRCRASH. General aviation accidents need to have a really high level of notability to be covered in aircraft type articles - neither of the included accidents have resulted in the airworthiness of the type being questioned, no already notable person was killed, no air traffic regulations were amended as a consequence, etc. These were just "routine" accidents, with no lasting consequences for the aircraft type, the manufacturer, operational procedures or regulations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH is pretty clear on this: accidents in light aircraft type articles need to either involve the death of a wiki-notable person (have their own bio article) or result in some sort of design changes/ Airworthiness Directive or similar outcome. The reason is that most well-produced light aircraft have hundreds of accidents that are otherwise non-notable. Ford Mustang doesn't list all the car accidents that the type has had, as there would be millions of them. Neither of the two accidents in this article meet the criteria and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur - there are a few accidents involving GA aircraft that are notable, such as the 1974 Norfolk mid-air collision involving Piper PA-25 G-ASVX, and Court Line Flight 95, involving Piper PA-23 G-AYDE amongst others. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Video external link

The 20 minute video shot from what appears to be a camera on the cockpit coaming does not add significantly to readers understanding of the article subject - i.e. the Pilatus PC-12 - it could be shot from any aircraft really, and appears to breach point 1 of WP:ELNO:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

Why is this external link needed and what does it add to the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's also an apparent COI as the user is adding a link to a video he took or uploaded himself. The user has a long history of promoting his own work on WP. - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Too long and quite pointless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I watched the video which is why I removed it. I agree it is a long and pointless home movie. It is not encyclopedic content and adds nothing to the article. WP:ELNO item 11 says not to post links to "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" This essentially fits that criteria, plus the user who keeps adding the links is apparently the person who shot the video, which makes it self-promotional in nature. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Flying Magazine July 2013 Source

If someone has access to the July 2013 of Flying magazine, please fill in the empty fields in the commented-out reference I added in my recent edit, and remove the other citation. As can be seen here, this article comes from the July 2013 issue. I like having the web link, but I think it's best to add the information from the magazine as well, in case the web link gets taken down, or put behind a paywall. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

that's why archive.org --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Point of view

This article's tone feels more like a PR piece than an objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiewrites (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be just factual to me. Perhaps you can give some examples of why you think that? - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There’s a lot of examples of what Richie is talking about: “ A trailing arm landing gear arrangement is used to enable the PC-12 to access thousands of airfields that most jet aircraft would be incapable of using”

“ The cabin interior of the PC-12 can accommodate up to nine passengers in a comfortable configuration”

Even at the beginning where they say, “ Pilatus believed that the PC-12 would fit a new market not served by existing aircraft and that the type would be the first single-engine aircraft capable of a large volume at high speed across long distances.” sounds like direct marketing to me.

I should say I’m a big fan of the airplane but I noticed the marketing right off. Wattsinabox (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to tone down. I've just done it. The "Pilatus believed..." sentence is OK since it is not presented as a fact but as the manufacturer opinion. Go ahead if you find other biased statements, just make them more factual!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Uber-Large Photograph

As I'm sure many others have noticed, there's a very large, oversized photograph on the page. Perhaps whoever put it there would prefer to use the smaller version commensurate with standard Wikipedia practices. Users may still click on the smaller version to reach the full-sized image in all its glory. - Clepsydrae (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it was an accidental image formatting error, arising from an edit made by another editor on 16 April 2021.  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Blackhawk Aerospace Upgrade

Last year at NBAA Blackhawk Aerospace announced an upgrade program for legacy PC-12's which will upgrade the PT-6A-67B to the PT6A-67P. This is similar to the upgrades that Blackhawk does on other aircraft that use the PT-6 such as Beethcraft King Airs and Cessna Caravan with a fair amount of success. Blackhawk just announced on October 18, 2022 that they have completed flight testing and also have received 5 firm preorders for the upgrade once the STC is certified. It appears that this could be a new variant for the PC-12. Its this worth noting on the Wiki article for the Pilatus? Both the King Air and Caravan have the Blackhawk variant listed and as well as a note about the performance increases. It might be early for this, but I thought I'd get some thoughts on this.KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if you have some refs for it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There are good refs on the Blackhawk upgrades from several aviation news outlets. I think for now I may just put a line under the "Operational History" section stating the announcements from Blackhawk Aerospace, and include some information about the coming upgrades. Once the STC is approved by the FAA and EASA it would probably be appropriate to list this as an actual variant of the PC-12.KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No list of accidents

It seems like most aircraft on Wikipedia list the notable incidents and accidents that the aircraft were involved in. Is there a reason there are none mentioned in this article on the PC-12? I see the discussion above about accidents being removed because they didn't meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. I think most articles specific to an aircraft list the accidents. Any suggestions? KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

GA aircraft accidents aren't very notable, except when there is a regulation change or a famous casualty. Maybe a summary could be appropriate, if a good ref is available.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Our inclusion criteria for aircraft accidents in aircraft is WP:AIRCRASH. We only list accidents that have lasting effects, like the issuance of airworthiness directives or design changes, or that result in the death of notable people (those with bios already on Wikipedia). The reason we have this criteria is that light aircraft accidents are very common, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and therefore not very notable. That none are included in this article mostly likely means that there have been none that meet the criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that I understand why the PC-12 accidents are not included in WP:AIRCRASH; namely that there's a ton of them and most are not notable. What I am not understanding is why there is no accident or incident information listed in the PC-12 Wiki article, like there is for almost all other aircraft on Wikipedia. If you look at other similar GA aircraft there is typically a section in the article that has a list of notable accidents (mainly fatal accidents), or a section with accident statistics. Look at the Beechcraft Super King Air for example. I think adding an "Accidents and incidents" section would not only be informative, but would be in line with all other aircraft articles on Wikipedia. What I would like to do is add this section with the statistics from the Air Safety Foundation, to start off, then gradually add the notable/fatal accidents. There's about 12 of these accidents that could be listed.KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason that there isn't a section now is it would be empty and we don't have empty sections in articles. If there is any content to add then the section can be included, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. If you want to add a referenced statistical summary of all accidents to date, that would be fine, along with any individual accidents that comply with the light aircraft section at WP:AIRCRASH, which is to say accidents that have had lasting effects or in which notable people died. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a section with the accident stats from the Aviation Safety Network for now. I wonder if the PC-12 should be considered a "Light Aircraft" when adding accidents to this section? The PC-12 is technically a light aircraft with it's MTOW being below 12,500', but most similar type aircraft have a list of notable accidents. I noted the King Air as an example, and it does appear that most turbine powered aircraft, whether they meet the light aircraft criteria in WP:AIRCRASH or not, have a list of notable accidents in their Wikipedia article. I'm not 100% sure, but I think many of these likely did not have notable people or any major change in the aircraft type design/operations. I'm not wanting to debate this or trying to prove a point, it just seems like information that would improve the article and would bring it in line with most other aircraft in the PC-12's class of operations. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It does look like several of the accidents listed on these aircraft do actually have notable people on board, so I apologize for my oversight on this. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The PC-12 is very definitely a light aircraft. Some of the King Air family are over 12,500 lbs, but still if other articles are done wrong then they need fixing, not doing this one wrong, too.

The only issue with your addition to this article is that the ref you cited is not an acceptable WP:RS. It is an open wiki that anyone can edit and thus WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll change this to an acceptable source. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this might not be as easy as I thought! I'm working in this by am going to have to revisit it next week as I'll be out of the office and away from my computer. For now I'll make a note that this info comes from a wiki database. Also, the ASN wiki is an open wiki, but it seems to be cited fairly often in aviation articles and seems to be considered reliable in the aviation community. Thanks again! KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)